This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-01-14 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| In awarding damages in libel cases, the court is given ample discretion to determine the amount, depending upon the facts of the particular case.[29] Article 2219 of the Civil Code expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. However, "while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, x x x it is nevertheless essential that the claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis of damages and its causal connection to defendant's acts."[30] Considering that respondent sufficiently justified his claim for damages (i.e. he testified that he was "embarrassed by the said letters [and] ashamed to show his face in [sic] government offices"[31]), we find him entitled to moral and exemplary damages. | |||||
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| In affirming award of damages under Article 19 of the Civil Code, this court has said that "[t]he legitimate state interest underlying the law of libel is the compensation of the individuals for the harm inflicted upon them by defamatory falsehood. After all, the individual's right to protection of his own good name 'reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.'"[219] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Philippine Journalists, Inc. (People's Journal) v. Theonen,[39] this Court adopted the pronouncement in the United States Decision in Gertz v. Robert Welsch, Inc.[40] that, in order to be considered as fair commentaries on matters of public interest, the individual to whom the defamatory articles were imputed should either be a public officer or a public figure: In Borjal v. Court of Appeals, we stated that "the enumeration under Art. 354 is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged communications since fair commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged. We stated that the doctrine of fair commentaries means "that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition." | |||||